Data Recorder mandated by US Gov. by Sept. 1, 2014

I just read that the US government will require data recorders on all vehicles produced after September 1, 2014. The article noted that many auto makers have been using recording data for quite a while...some since 1990. But by the September date, all manufactures will have to be forthcoming about the existence of the black box in the owner's manual.

For folks in the industry, do we worry about an environment that appears to have no rules guarding privacy? I may have played my hand by asking this question...what do I have to worry about? A heavy foot perhaps?

I can certainly see the upside if I were involved in an accident not caused by myself.

DOT and NHTSA are owned by the insurance lobby. Individual mandate. Click-it-or-ticket and all seat belt laws. Speed limit modifications. Crash testing, though it proved to be a poisoned chalice when crumple zones totaled the vehicles. Superfluous airbags. Back up cameras. Now black boxes that will be subpoenaed for litigation.

DOT and NHTSA are owned by the insurance lobby. Individual mandate. Click-it-or-ticket and all seat belt laws. Speed limit modifications. Crash testing, though it proved to be a poisoned chalice when crumple zones totaled the vehicles. Superfluous airbags. Back up cameras. Now black boxes that will be subpoenaed for litigation.

I hate to sound a bit PC and conventional - but I quite like most of the above safety features mentioned. When I think back to the cars of the fifties and sixties I am surprised I actually survived. The Morris Minis especially were a bit frightening with the driver's door being just a single sheet of steel - no side crash protection at all. Single circuit brakes - I had three total brake failures in a Mini - could have been very nasty.

About 4 years ago I witnessed some crash testing and what piqued my interest was that immediately after the crash, an engineer from the car company removed the SRS module (the black box that controls airbags, belt pretensioners, door unlocking etc) and secured it in his briefcase.

I knew there was some data in there that could be read by the factory scan tool, number of pretensioner activations, crash reporting etc, but suspected more.

What I discovered after some searching was a host of extra information is stored in there! Vehicle speed. decel Gs, whether belts were worn and a whole lot more. So, had big brother been interested...and I am sure he was, that information was already available to crash investigators.

As a matter of interest, what the crash test was investigating was a new phenomenon that has arisen in cars fitted with curtain airbags having a side impact. As a result of the 'law of unintended consequences' injuries anf fatalities were being experienced when the driver' and passenger's heads collided. One head propelled by the inertia, the other rebounding from the airbag.

Personally I do not feel safe not wearing one! I drive almost 50k miles a year and see too much!

I had an accident 8 years ago, car flipped five times, the police closed the road thinking I'd died, I would have of I HADN'T been wearing a seat belt, the fact my skull was exposed just goes to show the forces involved even if you are wearing a belt

When I was meching for a friend at a time when saloon car racing was much more dangerous than it is now, with few roll cages and flimsy shells, I saw a Ford Anglia cartwheeling and rolling down the Silverstone pit straight. It was a biggie, but fortunately not fatal - but it certainly got my attention, and I ordered a set of Irvin seat belts and fitted them in my Mini. Since then I have always worn seat belts, and even moving a car from one parking slot to another without the belts feels odd.

I think the problem is in defining the boundary between useful info that can resolve crash disputes and make cars safer/drivers more aware, and personal freedom. I am not fanatical about my personal freedom, and mobile phones give loads of information that to some is intrusive. However, freedoms lost, however small, are never regained.

I have friends who have raced, who will not wear belts on the road, just pulling the shoulder strap ove their shoulder so that it looks to prying eyes as if it is buckled up. The big fear seems to be the thought of being trapped in a burning vehicle. I think I would rather not go half way through the screen before being roasted.

DOT and NHTSA are owned by the insurance lobby. Individual mandate. Click-it-or-ticket and all seat belt laws. Speed limit modifications. Crash testing, though it proved to be a poisoned chalice when crumple zones totaled the vehicles. Superfluous airbags. Back up cameras. Now black boxes that will be subpoenaed for litigation.

I wonder if cars that informed the civil authorities each time a speed limit was exceeded resulting in a ticket automatically sent would result in people re-examining speed limits. People where I live exceed the posted limit in perhaps 8 or 9 out of ten cases yet we live in a democracy where if we cared to we could have the limits raised so that we wouldn't need to exceed them to maintain the same speed. Yet there is absolutely no push to do so. It's almost as if people *want* to break the law.

I wouldn't mind higher speed limits in some cases, but I would much prefer that the average driving public pay much more attention to the task of driving. As a thought experiment, I would also rather see a dagger installed in the steering wheel instead of an airbag...

I am reminded of the recent survey in which over 90 percent of Americans identified themselves as "very good drivers." And yet the presumption seems to be that a crash data recorder would tend to implicate rather than exonerate their judgement behind the wheel. Hmm.

I am surprised the manufacturers want this? Or do they?
As for the rest really I dont want to drive a Big Brother car. More of 1984?
As for airbags, the stupid buyers think a car with 6 air bags is safer than 2. It is 3 times safer!! The airbags are not much good when the door they are attached too is punted into the console!
Old Minis had a single skin door, so do many modern cars. The door trim is the inner part of the door. Ford Fiesta as an example. There is an intrusion bar ofcourse, that in effect holds the door together.
The so called safety tests often bear little resemblance to the real world. Walk through a crash auction or wrecking yard to get a true indication of real world crashes.Then in this country at least go buy a Falcon or Commodore! Or a big 4wd
The cars it seems are biuilt to survive crash tests, not real crashes.

I wouldn't mind higher speed limits in some cases, but I would much prefer that the average driving public pay much more attention to the task of driving. As a thought experiment, I would also rather see a dagger installed in the steering wheel instead of an airbag...

Where would government get their revenue? And how could they boast they are doing something about the road toll? Here in South Oz speeding fines are keeping the government from bankruptcy. Many country roads have had the limits reduced for no reason except revenue traps,, or because the govt is too cash strapped to do the maintenance required. So you get 80k limit for a 100kmh for 2 k of crook road!Which in effect causes more accidents as drivers are watching the speedo instead of the road, and get bored driving way below the roads capacity. We now have a 50k metro limit,, except for the roads with a 60k limit. Has caused hundreds of crashes from the speed watchers [myself almost included] and has raised millions of dollars. And causes about 100% more road rage as all the mugs drive 40-45 everywhere, including on the 60 k roads.Oh and the adds promoting the change says road safety and implicates that the braking distance increase is about 60 feet,, between 50 and 60k. Now I can brake safely in any normal car from 60 to zero in 60 feet.Not a panic stop, just a brisk stop. So road safety revenue raising based on lies.

My suggestion that a dagger be installed in the steering wheel rather than an airbag points to a correlation between increased safety and increased driving complacency. But the dagger does something more; 1/3 of the driving population will give up driving now, 1/3 will die from natural selection - I refer to Magoo's last post - leaving 1/3 to drive the roads unmolested and at the speed limit. I of course include myself in the last 1/3

I suppose you could draw parallels between auto safety and gun control. We institute auto safety laws at extraordinary expense and complication, for the benefit of insurance companies. A man jumps on a motorcycle and goes for a ride. President Clinton banned assault weapons. Two bank robbers appeared in North Hollywood with automatic weapons. The populace and general law enforcement were utterly helpless.

These people are not accomplishing much of anything. They are exerting control as a means of pursuing their existential values. That is the mark of a truly depraved individual--using legislation as a means of suppressing other value systems, without identifying any imminent threat to society and without making any substantial progress.

How many people know that a vast majority of violent crime is caused by organized crime (gangs and drug cartels)? How many people realize that we've added thousands of dollars in safety equipment to cars, yet the $50 seat belt mechanism is still the main determinant in whether or not you live?

Reason, intelligence, and self-preservation have been replaced with mechanisms of control. I always wear my seat belt and I own no firearms, but I'll never be dumb enough to buy into this system.

Congrats, you improved your life expectancy with each of those decisions.

OTOH - I cannot understand someone who doesn't own firearms being an advocate of liberal gun laws. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to correlate gun laws and firearm deaths. Car ownership is similar. Probably more dangerous than gun ownership (because owners tend to use them in public every day) but far more regulated.

I suppose you could draw parallels between auto safety and gun control. We institute auto safety laws at extraordinary expense and complication, for the benefit of insurance companies. A man jumps on a motorcycle and goes for a ride. President Clinton banned assault weapons. Two bank robbers appeared in North Hollywood with automatic weapons. The populace and general law enforcement were utterly helpless.

These people are not accomplishing much of anything. They are exerting control as a means of pursuing their existential values. That is the mark of a truly depraved individual--using legislation as a means of suppressing other value systems, without identifying any imminent threat to society and without making any substantial progress.

How many people know that a vast majority of violent crime is caused by organized crime (gangs and drug cartels)? How many people realize that we've added thousands of dollars in safety equipment to cars, yet the $50 seat belt mechanism is still the main determinant in whether or not you live?

Reason, intelligence, and self-preservation have been replaced with mechanisms of control. I always wear my seat belt and I own no firearms, but I'll never be dumb enough to buy into this system.

Since 1970, the number of vehicles on U.S. roads has increased over 150 percent, and the number of vehicle miles traveled per year has increased over 200 percent, while the number of vehicle fatalities per year has decreased over 40 percent. Damn those safety laws all to hell.

Magoo- Sadly, you fail to appreciate that the NRA is the single largest civil rights organization in the US. Far larger than the NAACP, ACLU, SPLC, etc.

The reality is that any regulatory action the federal government takes, whether it's gun registration, mandatory automotive data recorders, mandatory collection of personal medical records, or mandatory collection of personal financial activity by banks, it has nothing to do with safety or public welfare. Instead, it has to do with government control over private citizens.

Magoo- Sadly, you fail to appreciate that the NRA is the single largest civil rights organization in the US. Far larger than the NAACP, ACLU, SPLC, etc.

The reality is that any regulatory action the federal government takes, whether it's gun registration, mandatory automotive data recorders, mandatory collection of personal medical records, or mandatory collection of personal financial activity by banks, it has nothing to do with safety or public welfare. Instead, it has to do with government control over private citizens.

Those shopworn libertarian cliches don't do much for me. I am a lifelong shooter, gun enthusiast, smith, and former NRA Life Member. The gun debate here is totally out of touch with reality because the NRA has been taken over by the gun industry and gun loons who block all firearms regulation without exception. In 34 states it is easier to purchase an AR-15 than it is to adopt a pet, register a used car, or take out a library book. For private gun transactions there are no restrictions at all. What government control?

The NRA is not the organization it was 20 years ago. As hunting and the traditional shooting sports die off due to urbanization, evolving ethics about hunting, etc. the membership ranks are replenished with gun festishists, paranoids, survivalists, and assorted fruitcakes. Each year a smaller percentage of the population owns a larger number of guns. These people have poor knowledge of the history and technology of firearms and have no idea what they own. For example, they have no grasp of the fact that an AR-15 possesses far more lethal firepower than a Thompson submachine gun. To unlawfully possess a Thompson is a federal felony but any lunatic can obtain an AR-15 on Craigslist or the local swap meet-- or at Walmart if they can pass the instant background check.

Do we have any idea what multiple rounds of .223/5.56mm do to a 40 lb, six year-old child? Do we grasp that the babies at Sandy Hook were struck with three to 11 rounds each? Do we understand why it took 24 hours to positively identify these children, and many parents were shown only photographs? Do we understand that the survivors, parents, and first responders will be having horrific nightmares for the rest of their lives?

Before we spout any more civil liberties jargon in abstract, some reading:

Magoo- Sadly, you fail to appreciate that the NRA is the single largest civil rights organization in the US. Far larger than the NAACP, ACLU, SPLC, etc.

That the NRA clings to a fundamentalist interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of a document that was written when many (most, all?) were muzzle loaded and the US had no regular army does not make them a Civil Rights Group.

Regarding road safety regulation, how much does road trauma cost your country per year? I'm sure it isn't an insignificant amount.

Those shopworn libertarian cliches don't do much for me. I am a lifelong shooter, gun enthusiast, smith, and former NRA Life Member. The gun debate here is totally out of touch with reality because the NRA has been taken over by the gun industry and gun loons who block all firearms regulation without exception. ***Before we spout any more civil liberties jargon in abstract, some reading:

I've been keeping an occasional eye on the Connecticut school shooting thread in The Paddock Club. It is, of course, going nowhere, both sides entrenched. This post is the most moving and thought-provoking comment on the same subject, and should change the status quo, but it won't, of course.

I've been keeping an occasional eye on the Connecticut school shooting thread in The Paddock Club. It is, of course, going nowhere, both sides entrenched. This post is the most moving and thought-provoking comment on the same subject, and should change the status quo, but it won't, of course.

Glad I'm not a member. I have nothing but contempt for the current gun crowd, aka Gun Culture 2.0.

EDIT: Here's a handy tip for anyone trying to make sense of the gun debate from the outside in: Essentially, everything the gun crowd says is bald-faced lie. They lie about everything. They lie habitually; they lie reflexively. They lie when the truth serves them better. They can't help it.

Glad I'm not a member. I have nothing but contempt for the current gun crowd, aka Gun Culture 2.0.

EDIT: Here's a handy tip for anyone trying to make sense of the gun debate from the outside in: Essentially, everything the gun crowd says is bald-faced lie. They lie about everything. They lie habitually; they lie reflexively. They lie when the truth serves them better. They can't help it.

I understand that quoting statistics doesn't help.

For instance, a homeowner with gun is (about) 20 times more likely to get shot in the house than them shooting an intruder.

Those shopworn libertarian cliches don't do much for me. I am a lifelong shooter, gun enthusiast, smith, and former NRA Life Member. The gun debate here is totally out of touch with reality because the NRA has been taken over by the gun industry and gun loons who block all firearms regulation without exception. In 34 states it is easier to purchase an AR-15 than it is to adopt a pet, register a used car, or take out a library book. For private gun transactions there are no restrictions at all. What government control?

The NRA is not the organization it was 20 years ago. As hunting and the traditional shooting sports die off due to urbanization, evolving ethics about hunting, etc. the membership ranks are replenished with gun festishists, paranoids, survivalists, and assorted fruitcakes. Each year a smaller percentage of the population owns a larger number of guns. These people have poor knowledge of the history and technology of firearms and have no idea what they own. For example, they have no grasp of the fact that an AR-15 possesses far more lethal firepower than a Thompson submachine gun. To unlawfully possess a Thompson is a federal felony but any lunatic can obtain an AR-15 on Craigslist or the local swap meet-- or at Walmart if they can pass the instant background check.

Do we have any idea what multiple rounds of .223/5.56mm do to a 40 lb, six year-old child? Do we grasp that the babies at Sandy Hook were struck with three to 11 rounds each? Do we understand why it took 24 hours to positively identify these children, and many parents were shown only photographs? Do we understand that the survivors, parents, and first responders will be having horrific nightmares for the rest of their lives?

Before we spout any more civil liberties jargon in abstract, some reading:

Well said. 20 years ago I was sympathetic to the NRA and its message. I've since seen through it and recognize them as a dangerous violent sociopathic cult who see themselves as living in some puerile white hat/black hat Western--all bankrolled by amoral corporate death merchants.

Congrats, you improved your life expectancy with each of those decisions.

OTOH - I cannot understand someone who doesn't own firearms being an advocate of liberal gun laws. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to correlate gun laws and firearm deaths. Car ownership is similar. Probably more dangerous than gun ownership (because owners tend to use them in public every day) but far more regulated.

Please tell me you are not this gullible. A statistical chart in which the top ten and bottom ten statistical points are used to form a trend line, while the amorphous blob in the middle is ignored and unlabeled. Have you no college degree? or did you show up to QBA drunk off your ass?

We also have statistical correlations showing that gun sales and crime have an inverse relationship, and that unrestricted or liberal concealed carry laws and crime have an inverse relationship.

Society is looking for a causal relationship, not a correlation. For all you know, states with high gun ownership rates may have had pre-existing problems with violent crime, particularly gangs, etc.

Since 1970, the number of vehicles on U.S. roads has increased over 150 percent, and the number of vehicle miles traveled per year has increased over 200 percent, while the number of vehicle fatalities per year has decreased over 40 percent. Damn those safety laws all to hell.

Forget it, Magoo.

Democracy has a sort of perverse equity to it. If you're a gullible sheep, you have demonstrated to the legislature that you need to be regulated and controlled. Please don't waste your time trying to convince me that I need the same treatment. The government refuses to explain that violent crime is caused by organized crime, and NHTSA officials refuse to explain that seat belts are the determinant of surviving crashes, as they have been for the last 5 decades.

They are not building a fence to keep the wolves away. They are building a fence to keep you in so you can be fleeced once a season. If the certainty and stability of this symbiotic arrangement brings you great psychological comfort, may you enjoy the rest of your days on this planet. I must have substance to be satisfied. I demand that the legislature actually achieve something, other than using improving metrics as a blank check for a litany of superfluous policies, which will inevitably incriminate someone.

Democracy has a sort of perverse equity to it. If you're a gullible sheep, you have demonstrated to the legislature that you need to be regulated and controlled. Please don't waste your time trying to convince me that I need the same treatment. The government refuses to explain that violent crime is caused by organized crime, and NHTSA officials refuse to explain that seat belts are the determinant of surviving crashes, as they have been for the last 5 decades.

They are not building a fence to keep the wolves away. They are building a fence to keep you in so you can be fleeced once a season. If the certainty and stability of this symbiotic arrangement brings you great psychological comfort, may you enjoy the rest of your days on this planet. I must have substance to be satisfied. I demand that the legislature actually achieve something, other than using improving metrics as a blank check for a litany of superfluous policies, which will inevitably incriminate someone.

This is all fine unless you believe you were actually making sense here. That would be cause for concern.

Please tell me you are not this gullible. A statistical chart in which the top ten and bottom ten statistical points are used to form a trend line, while the amorphous blob in the middle is ignored and unlabeled. Have you no college degree? or did you show up to QBA drunk off your ass?

Stats is not my strong point but a glance at the two charts I posted and your response, tells me that you - in comparison - are a stats moron.- Neither chart shows a trendline, although a fifth grader could skecth one and be within a few percent of best fit.- Neither chart exhibits an amorphous blob nor even a significant proportion of outliers.- At a glance, it is clear (to anyone but a stats moron) that the data is not random - more so if you add a data point at the origin. (Zero guns = zero gun deaths.)

We also have statistical correlations showing that gun sales and crime have an inverse relationship, and that unrestricted or liberal concealed carry laws and crime have an inverse relationship.

I would ask to see them except the question is not the relationship to "crime" but to "gun deaths"

Society is looking for a causal relationship, not a correlation. For all you know, states with high gun ownership rates may have had pre-existing problems with violent crime, particularly gangs, etc.

Possible. Interesting though, that the second chart (by country) shows an even stronger correlation and the rates of gun ownership are more a function of legal framework than citizens reacting to prevalence of crime.

As to "causal relationships". It may be difficult to predict a reduction in gun deaths for a reduction in ownership of say 50%, but there is no questioning the effect of a 100% reduction.

The government refuses to explain that violent crime is caused by organized crime,

Mass killings are almost NEVER the result of organised crime. Then there are street assaults, domestic violence, drunken brawls . . . . Hmmm I'm struggling to find the organised crime

and NHTSA officials refuse to explain that seat belts are the determinant of surviving crashes, as they have been for the last 5 decades.

In Oz, wearing of seat belts has been mandatory since 1972. In 1976 there were 35.5 road fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers. This figure dropped progressively to 5.8 in 2011. There are clearly factors other than seat belts that are very important.

Yes - what he seems to be intentionally ignoring is that seatbelts are the proverbial low hanging fruit of injury/death reduction. I'm not sure why that is anything other than obvious. Of course they are - if you're not held in the space around which things like crumple zones, air bags and what-have-you are designed, they can hardly work properly. If you remove seatbelts from the equation and are suddenly subject to trying to manually keep your head from being impaled on the gear shift as you float through the cabin, I'd guess the crumple zone isn't likely to help you out much.

This railing is amusing though even if I tend to lean towards some of his tinfoil hatness.

Congrats, you improved your life expectancy with each of those decisions.

OTOH - I cannot understand someone who doesn't own firearms being an advocate of liberal gun laws. It doesn't take a Rhodes scholar to correlate gun laws and firearm deaths. Car ownership is similar. Probably more dangerous than gun ownership (because owners tend to use them in public every day) but far more regulated.

Mass killings are almost NEVER the result of organised crime. Then there are street assaults, domestic violence, drunken brawls . . . . Hmmm I'm struggling to find the organised crime

In Oz, wearing of seat belts has been mandatory since 1972. In 1976 there were 35.5 road fatalities per billion vehicle kilometers. This figure dropped progressively to 5.8 in 2011. There are clearly factors other than seat belts that are very important.

I understand that the world is just an empirical exercise for most people, but our crime data is easily accessible to anyone who wishes to find it.

Both airbags and crumple zones have made a major contribution to safety, from a theoretical vantage point, but you what? The proportion of road fatalities caused by lack of seatbelt is basically unchanged, and seat belt usage rates in the United States by both drivers and passengers (front seat and back seat) have increased sharply thanks to seat belt enforcement legislation and various liability rules. A vast majority of our fatality reductions have come from seatbelt laws, seatbelt culture, and seatbelt enforcement. Unfortunately, we are fining people, revoking driving privileges, and jailing some for refusing to protect themselves. The mark of insurance companies is unmistakable.

We have transportation secretaries who keep piling on superfluous regs to create a safety legacy for themselves. Normally, these endeavors are relatively harmless sedatives for the neurotic sheeple, but now society is confronted with crash compliance costs across nations and trading areas. We also need to make our vehicles more fuel efficient, but basic lightweighting strategies are virtually impossible b/c the cars are designed to survive the eventuality of being hit by an asteroid.

These issues can never be addressed until people stop the vainglorious PC knee-jerk reactions, and they start looking at the data.

Surely the airbag has managed to reduce the rates of non fatal car crash injuries?

Unfortunately, we are fining people, revoking driving privileges, and jailing some for refusing to protect themselves.

People can actually be sent to gaol for not wearing seatbelts? Not sure that can happen here - probably the worst is losing the licence - after multiple infringements.

If there was no punishment for not wearing a seatbelt, what good is a law requiring the use of a seatbelt?

The mark of insurance companies is unmistakable.

What mark?

The seat belt laws? Or the enforcement of said laws?

As I said above, not enforcing them means there is no point to the law.

As for the laws themselves, sure the insurance companies gain by not having to pay for clients whose injuries have been sustained as a result of not wearing seatbelts. But they could equally make the wearing of a seatbelt a requirement in the insurance agreement.

I ask again, how much do road fatalities and road trauma cost the various governments there each year?

I seem to recall a figure of $1m per fatality here in Australia, less for injuries.

For instance, a homeowner with gun is (about) 20 times more likely to get shot in the house than them shooting an intruder.

Indeed. If you or a family member would like to be shot, the best way to improve your odds is to purchase a firearm. By far the greatest number of people are shot with their own guns or guns originating in their own households.

Another fascinating if macabre aspect of firearms deaths: Well over 60 percent of the firearms fatalities in the USA are suicides. And meanwhile, over half of all suicides are by firearm--the most common means of suicide by a large margin. Which raises a chicken/egg question for sociologists: are gun owners more inclined to suicide, or are suicidal persons more prone to own guns?